Matt Thomas - Matty Ice

[Isaiah 1:13]

who trades a knock down 3pt shooter for a future second from the current nba leader? maybe he has holes in his game, but shooting is one of the hardest things to learn. let's go development team! (i admit, i love these kinds of players)

I don't know, maybe anticipating a lopsided Lowery deal that never materialized.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

A lot of thoughts on this as follows:

I've always been a big supporter of just getting the guy who shoots. Even guys who are perceived as being really bad players, if they're elite shooters there is a role for them, and even though people always say that, nobody really puts the rubber to the road, though there have been a few examples over the years and there are certainly being more and more examples recently. I really liked Korver before we got him the first time. Obviously he's got some other things to his game, but these guys can be valuable. Popovich has done a pretty good job in this regard. Bonner is not a good player, but SA knew how to use him to make this fit. I really liked a guy like Jason Kapono, and he admittedly at least got some burn. One guy I wanted before we got, but who ultimately didn't really play with us, is Steve Novak. For as much as Quin is touted to like shooting, and as much as we could have used it, he didn't use Novak. Seth Curry, as mentioned above, is a good example of this. People knew he was a good shooter. But he was able to float around on small deals and not have many people beating down his door, but now people respect him as a legitimate player and not just a 'me too' relative. I think the fact that we're seeing someone like Duncan Robinson start in the finals in his second year really helps break down some of the stigma. There's a big stigma against guys who are sharp shooters but with more limited all-around skill. Perhaps we'll even see this stigma swing the other way.

In any case, I like the move if we're committed to trying to see if this can be a legitimate resource, but the FO and coaching staff aren't always on the same page. Last year we all convinced ourselves that signing Rayjon Tucker was our loophole for 'having a first round pick' since we didn't really have any. Then we waived him in the summer. If we end up waiving this guy this summer, then giving up that second round pick will look really stupid. But if we like this guy enough that we're confident that we'd like him more than what's available with the second round pick, then that's cool. I'd say there's enough there that if we picked this guy up in the second round, I'd like it.

But, more importantly, this has to be a move totally separate from what we're doing this season. If this move at all affects any other move(s) we would make after this point, then this is a huge fail. If we're not going to sign a buyout guy that we otherwise would have if we had an available roster spot, then this move is stupid. It can both be a good move in a vacuum and a terrible move in context. I think that's the part some people ardently laying rose pedals for the FO miss.

When I was in residency you were not paid very well compared to how many hours you were putting in and compared to what you'd get paid after residency. Some residents moonlight, and make quite a bit more doing outside work. I ended up doing a lot of this. A lot of times, people would use the extra money to pay down student loans. I refused to do so, because moonlighting represented time away from my family. So if I was going to spend time away from family, I was going to use that money for us to do things together as a family, and a dollar to us then was worth a lot more than a dollar to us in the future, so it's easy to lose sight of that and pay down student loans (which isn't a bad thing, per se, just not the best when you look at the whole context). So, how valuable is someone like a Moe Harkless to us right now vs. a role-playing shooter a few years from now? If our window to compete is now, then a Moe Harkless now is worth a hell of a lot more than a Seth Curry in the future. We need to get over the hump.

This can all be irrelevant if we're willing to waive someone to sign another piece. But I'm still not convinced we do that.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

@infection: The Jazz run a Spurs-like system, where ball movement, floor spacing and knock-down shooting are of paramount importance. The Jazz launch and make the most 3s in the league. That's clearly their offensive identity. The spacing then opens up the floor for high screen/roll actions that put the defense in a quandry--either they have to leave our shooters to defend the paint, or they give up shots at the rim. This year, unlike years in the past, the Jazz are encouraging shooting 3s in transition off of misses and makes as well.

The Jazz have so many shooters taking so many 3pt shots that it has the affect of spreading their risk should one or more of their players not shoot well. Last night, Jordan Clarkson shot 1-11 from 3pt range. Joe Ingles was 1-6. Yet despite those two going 2-17, the Jazz as a collective still shot 42% on 55 3PAs (22-53). The Jazz's 3pt shooting machine is designed for some guys to be hot and some guys to be cold, while still generating a nearly insurmountable mathematical advantage. (A team that shoots 40% on 40+ 3PAs generates 1.2 points per possession on those possessions, or a TS% of 60%.)

To that end, the Jazz bring in yet another guard who can generate and knock-down 3s with volume and further de-risk the 3pt shooting juggernaut, while keeping a defender glued to him. His lack of defense may limit his minutes and make him matchup dependent. However, the Jazz's defensive strategy is Rudy Gobert, and unless the other team has a player that can pull him away from the paint, Rudy helps mitigates our perimeter players' defensive limitations, and the net result is still positive.

 

[homeytennis]

Part of this was how bad the Stars stunk this year. You would think they would have had a player that would fill this role and not waste a draft pick, but nope. Hughes had better get it turned around or he won't be around when his contract expires.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

@infection: The Jazz run a Spurs-like system, where ball movement, floor spacing and knock-down shooting are of paramount importance. The Jazz launch and make the most 3s in the league. That's clearly their offensive identity. The spacing then opens up the floor for high screen/roll actions that put the defense in a quandry--either they have to leave our shooters to defend the paint, or they give up shots at the rim. This year, unlike years in the past, the Jazz are encouraging shooting 3s in transition off of misses and makes as well.

The Jazz have so many shooters taking so many 3pt shots that it has the affect of spreading their risk should one or more of their players not shoot well. Last night, Jordan Clarkson shot 1-11 from 3pt range. Joe Ingles was 1-6. Yet despite those two going 2-17, the Jazz as a collective still shot 42% on 55 3PAs (22-53). The Jazz's 3pt shooting machine is designed for some guys to be hot and some guys to be cold, while still generating a nearly insurmountable mathematical advantage. (A team that shoots 40% on 40+ 3PAs generates 1.2 points per possession on those possessions, or a TS% of 60%.)

To that end, the Jazz bring in yet another guard who can generate and knock-down 3s with volume and further de-risk the 3pt shooting juggernaut, while keeping a defender glued to him. His lack of defense may limit his minutes and make him matchup dependent. However, the Jazz's defensive strategy is Rudy Gobert, and unless the other team has a player that can pull him away from the paint, Rudy helps mitigates our perimeter players' defensive limitations.

He’s not getting on the court this year unless it’s for an injury or a rest day for one of our guys. I’m not even sure he’s in our plans for next year unless we move someone.

 

[infection]

@infection: The Jazz run a Spurs-like system, where ball movement, floor spacing and knock-down shooting are of paramount importance. The Jazz launch and make the most 3s in the league. That's clearly their offensive identity. The spacing then opens up the floor for high screen/roll actions that put the defense in a quandry--either they have to leave our shooters to defend the paint, or they give up shots at the rim. This year, unlike years in the past, the Jazz are encouraging shooting 3s in transition off of misses and makes as well.

The Jazz have so many shooters taking so many 3pt shots that it has the affect of spreading their risk should one or more of their players not shoot well. Last night, Jordan Clarkson shot 1-11 from 3pt range. Joe Ingles was 1-6. Yet despite those two going 2-17, the Jazz as a collective still shot 42% on 55 3PAs (22-53). The Jazz's 3pt shooting machine is designed for some guys to be hot and some guys to be cold, while still generating a nearly insurmountable mathematical advantage. (A team that shoots 40% on 40+ 3PAs generates 1.2 points per possession on those possessions, or a TS% of 60%.)

To that end, the Jazz bring in yet another guard who can generate and knock-down 3s with volume and further de-risk the 3pt shooting juggernaut, while keeping a defender glued to him. His lack of defense may limit his minutes and make him matchup dependent. However, the Jazz's defensive strategy is Rudy Gobert, and unless the other team has a player that can pull him away from the paint, Rudy helps mitigates our perimeter players' defensive limitations.

If our defensive strategy is Rudy Gobert, then we get 50 pt Jamal Murray. Or we get a team throwing a 5-out and then just be aggressive with us on the perimeter, like we saw in the last LAC game. What we need more is a modicum of perimeter diversity options. I have no beef with bringing this guy in. I actually kind of like it. My issue is that if we’re looking at the future hypotheticals with this guy and letting it cloud what our clear goal should be now: to win the title this year. If we’re fine waiving one of the other developmental guys to bring in a buyout guy, then it’s irrelevant. My concern is that we’re more hesitant to make that move ‘because we made our move.’

 

[gandalfe]

Here's another part of it: There are only 29 teams in the league for you to make deals with. If you can do a deal like this that doesn't really cost anything and buys you some goodwill, why not? Maybe someone will be willing to answer your call when they're at dinner instead of letting it go to voicemail, maybe they'll do you a solid some time when you need it...

 

[Gameface]

@infection: The Jazz run a Spurs-like system, where ball movement, floor spacing and knock-down shooting are of paramount importance. The Jazz launch and make the most 3s in the league. That's clearly their offensive identity. The spacing then opens up the floor for high screen/roll actions that put the defense in a quandry--either they have to leave our shooters to defend the paint, or they give up shots at the rim. This year, unlike years in the past, the Jazz are encouraging shooting 3s in transition off of misses and makes as well.

The Jazz have so many shooters taking so many 3pt shots that it has the affect of spreading their risk should one or more of their players not shoot well. Last night, Jordan Clarkson shot 1-11 from 3pt range. Joe Ingles was 1-6. Yet despite those two going 2-17, the Jazz as a collective still shot 42% on 55 3PAs (22-53). The Jazz's 3pt shooting machine is designed for some guys to be hot and some guys to be cold, while still generating a nearly insurmountable mathematical advantage. (A team that shoots 40% on 40+ 3PAs generates 1.2 points per possession on those possessions, or a TS% of 60%.)

To that end, the Jazz bring in yet another guard who can generate and knock-down 3s with volume and further de-risk the 3pt shooting juggernaut, while keeping a defender glued to him. His lack of defense may limit his minutes and make him matchup dependent. However, the Jazz's defensive strategy is Rudy Gobert, and unless the other team has a player that can pull him away from the paint, Rudy helps mitigates our perimeter players' defensive limitations, and the net result is still positive.

tl;dr HYDRA

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

If our defensive strategy is Rudy Gobert, then we get 50 pt Jamal Murray. Or we get a team throwing a 5-out and then just be aggressive with us on the perimeter, like we saw in the last LAC game. What we need more is a modicum of perimeter diversity options. I have no beef with bringing this guy in. I actually kind of like it. My issue is that if we’re looking at the future hypotheticals with this guy and letting it cloud what our clear goal should be now: to win the title this year. If we’re fine waiving one of the other developmental guys to bring in a buyout guy, then it’s irrelevant. My concern is that we’re more hesitant to make that move ‘because we made our move.’

If the Jazz have an opportunity to pick up a player they like and need to open a roster spot, they can waive Ilyasova or Morgan. Overall, I think Thomas might fit more than Ilyasova does.

What the Jazz could stand to add would be a big physical rebounder. The fact that Royce O'Neale is our 2nd leading rebounder shows how dependent we are on Rudy for boards. In our losses to the Clippers and Heat, we were outrebounded pretty badly.

 

[framer]

Here's another part of it: There are only 29 teams in the league for you to make deals with. If you can do a deal like this that doesn't really cost anything and buys you some goodwill, why not? Maybe someone will be willing to answer your call when they're at dinner instead of letting it go to voicemail, maybe they'll do you a solid some time when you need it...

Or sell you a Clarkson for an Exum. . .

 

[gomretat]

He’s not getting on the court this year unless it’s for an injury or a rest day for one of our guys. I’m not even sure he’s in our plans for next year unless we move someone.

Agreed on this year but I think this move was done on the cheap with future potential in mind. The Jazz knew they were not going to get anyone that would break into the rotation this year without giving up someone they were not willing to part with. I really like these kind of moves because it demonstrates the logic they have about taking shots at developing people and building for the future. The best teams dont focus solely on the hear and now - same reason I like the Udoka pick. We have players on this roster getting key minutes that we picked up because we saw a fit and potential and we developed them. It is why we have a solid team right now.

 

[kabenac]

Based on highlights he plays aggressive. It's going to be interesting to see how much playing time he receives.